Blogging politics, culture, sociology and life from Brisvegas
Dear Mr. Nader,
We see that you’re running for President of your country again, showing your continued lack of understanding – despite the rather dramatic lesson of the past eight years – of first-past-the-post electoral systems.
For all our sakes, please, don’t.
Respectfully Yours,
Concerned citizens of the world.
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
One thing it is important to know, given that the US combines first-past-the-post electoral systems with voluntary voting, is to what extent Nader would winnow votes away from Obama or Clinton rather than getting out voters who otherwise wouldn’t vote in a Democrat/Republican head-to-head.
Paul, there’s also the effect where Nader getting voters out of the house probably leads to them casting votes for local Democrat candidates where there is no Green running. It may only account for 1-2% of the total vote for that district but that’s the different between getting over the line and just falling short.
Perhaps if Nader “spoils” another election, the US Democrats will push for reform that will allow them to capture these extra votes without having to resort to dirty tricks like rigging petitions. If the US Greens are going to run and their preferences will flow to the Democrats in a IRV-STV system, they have a vested interest in getting the Greens on the ballot in as many states as possible.
And if the Democrats are going to denigrate Nader and the Greens for costing them the election in 2000 then they’d better hand back all those seats they won in 2006 when the Constitution Party candidates split the right-wing vote and got the Democrats elected.
That’s one thing I like about our preferential system – voting for a third candidate can never help the greater of the two evils. I rather like the idea of using it to elect posts with single positions (eg, president) but of course when it comes to large bodies of elected individuals (eg parliaments) Proportional Representation is best.
Isn’t Dennis Kucinich in favour of a directly elected president using preferential voting?
According to Wikipedia Ralph himself suggests that in 2000, 38% of his supporters would have voted for Gore, 25% for Bush (???) and the rest not at all.
That would have easily been enough to give Gore Florida.
To be fair, the situation in Florida was freaky and rather unlikely to be repeated, but does Nader really want to take the risk?
For what it’s worth, I think first-past-the-post voting is woeful, but that’s what the USA has.
[For what it’s worth, I think first-past-the-post voting is woeful, but that’s what the USA has.]
As do the UK I believe, as well as Voluntry voting.
Nader is a narcissist. That he should even think about this, beggars belief.
There’s also the effect where Nader getting voters out of the house probably leads to them casting votes for local Democrat candidates where there is no Green running … Perhaps if Nader “spoilsâ€? another election, the US Democrats will push for reform that will allow them to capture these extra votes without having to resort to dirty tricks like rigging petitions.
There must surely be a better way of getting more votes for a Democrat Chief Comptroller of Dog Catching in Topeka less drastic than re-electing the Republicans. Frankly, a few more wars, pro choice roll back, no health reform, continuing war on science, expanded Gitmo etc etc seems a high price to pay.
I’m surprised that Ralph is running this year, even when taking his narcissism into account. At 73, he’s older than John McCain (71), who himself is older than Reagan when he gained the presidency (just shy of 70). Or is he really content being a three-time loser?
Ralph was once an inspirational anti-coprporate warrior. I liked a lot of what he said and did to the likes of GM, but he’s in denial about his 2000 role in that gave us The reign of The Imbecile.
In 2004 Ralph pulled ~.3% of the national vote. In 2008 the 74 year-old is not a Player in any meaningful sense of the word. He’s a mere matchstick man standing on Obama beach about to be swept away by a surge of hopes and dreams.
Looking at both sides now, it’s politic’s illusions Ralph recalls, he really doesn’t know realpolitik at all. (Sorry Mistah Diamond)
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080224_two_views_on_naders_candidacy/
“Perhaps if Nader ’spoils’ another election, the US Democrats will push for reform that will allow them to capture these extra votes without having to resort to dirty tricks like rigging petitions.”
This reason, alone, justifies Nader’s tilt at the two ‘right Wing’ parties. Nader is the only contender representing the little folks, the only person standing who can leverage the Dems away from their ‘me-too-but-bigger’ support for free-range capitalism. (laissez-faire with parasites.) If the Dems don’t want to go there, let ‘em eat cake. (Maybe we should ban Bob Brown and the Australian Greens as well!)
The Centre For Public Integrity ran this interview today with Nader. In it Nader has some interesting things to say about the Fourth Estate’s lack of objectivity (surprise!) vis a vis acandidates and even suggests that there is legal obstruction to non-mainstream candidates:
Apparently he almost was.
>
Nader ran in ‘04 and only got 463,653 votes. He was not endorsed by the Green Party. He’s run every election since ‘96. He probably won’t make much of an impact. Besides the fact that he’s starting late and, as stated in the above interview, he doesn’t have the machine ready, he is not endorsed by any party and there’s a fairly strong base behind the Democrats this time.
>
In 2000 Al Gore wasn’t the ‘Environmental Hero’ he is today (chortle snort) he was a wooden robot. And the Republican base were mobilized after 8 years of Bubba. This time the Dems have two interesting and one very charismatic possibility. The Republicans have got more-of-the-same-McCain. McCain’s probably a better guy than Dubya (Satan might be a better guy than Dubya) but he’s not really offering an alternative to a highly unpopular incumbent. I don’t think Nader’s going to be a problem.
>
I reckon Nader’s better off campaigning for an optional/preferential system. Ron Paul would probably contribute as I’d guess he’d agree. They’d probably strongly disagree on certain things (Nader advocates compulsory free air time for candidates).
>
Thing is Paul’s name is mud since certain redneck associations have come to light and his libertarian views are being used against him back in Texas. He’s probably history.
>
But a transideological campaign for a reform of the US electoral system would be a better move than running for a presidency you can’t win.
No EC, your apologies should be directed at one Ms Mitchell.
That’s well known. You can’t just run for President. For a start, what you are actually running is a slate of presidential electors in each state. Each state determines eligibility differently, but each gives the GOP and the Democrats an automatic ballot slot. Anyone else has to petition to get on the ballot in most states, which can mean things like up to 100 000 signatures or a certain amount in each congressional district, precinct, etc. In some states, you have to have a party affiliation, comply with state law as to setting up a party…
You can bet that Democratic lawyers will be doing everything in their power to keep Nader off in as many states as possible.
hip: perhaps you would care to explain how well Nader’s political tactics have worked over the past decade?
Ring-ring……..ring-ring……pah-lick..
“Hi, Nader HQ, how may I help you?�
Pause…………….
“Certainly, sir, right away�…..*presses hold*
“Say, Ralph, it’s a Mr. Anton Chigurh, says he wants to make you an offer you can’t refuse.�
———————-
D’accord Adrian, mon mauvaise monsieur.
Je m’appelle AdriEn. AdriAn c’est un autre gars.
Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Electoral System.
Their system is stuffed and they have the gall to lecture everyone about democracy and free and fair elections.
Spose, at least, Ralph has drawn attention to the elephant and donkey in the room.
Whoops sorry didn’t see Adrian’s comment and thought you were talking to me EC. I didn’t know what you meant but I like to try and revive whatever French I retain. I reckon I probably stuffed it right?
>
Cormac McCarthy’s a great writer. And the Coen Bros deserved to win 10 years ago. Just sayin’.
Cela la EC CORRECTE, comment pourrait-elle vous est-elle confondre les deux cependant ?
I have to query the assertions about Florida Robert. After the recount Gore won. Nader was irrelevant. So it is a tired old trope of tired old Vichy democrats to demonize this good hearted man. And its an increasingly lame meme when fact-checking is so easy these days. Everyone here dissing Ralph is only rapidly diminishing their own reputation capital imho. If the Dems can’t get it up then maybe they should just be put down.
Lamer. Leftist. Losers.
We have too many of them right here in Hong Kong.
“16 Adrien
Feb 25th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Je m’appelle AdriEn. AdriAn c’est un autre gars.”
“12 adrian
Feb 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
No EC, your apologies should be directed at one Ms Mitchell.”
Apparently, Oliver Sacks is about to launch his new book:
“The Man Who Mistook His Life For A Typo”
Maybe the one with the ‘E’ should order his copy early to avoid disappointment.
Yeah, those typos can be a real pain.
EC and AdriAn please see #18.
>
Merde.
There is no reason why Nader should take more votes away from the Dem candidate than the GOP candidate.
Most of this doesn’t make any sense. See Jeremy’s post for more. But Nader’s entitled to run, and if the best Democrats can do is to claim that he’s the reason Gore lost, they can bugger off. Gore didn’t even carry his home state, and you can’t seriously blame Nader for that. If the Democrats are so uninspiring that a lawyer in his 70s can wreck their shot, it’s hard to argue that they deserve to win.
Yeah, righto Adrien, N.B. the the time gap. 8 minutes. We crossed while I was checking on the Sacks bit, you antsy bloody bi-lingual! Liked your post at 11 btw, tres comprehensive.
Meanwhile, it’s ~24 hours since Ralph tossed his toupee into the ring. Let’s cast an optic over the board odds, shall we?
President – WINNER- Cbet
OBAMA, Barack 1.68
MCCAIN, John 2.90
CLINTON, Hillary 4.50
Well whaddya know, there has been bugger-all movment for the last 3 days. Bubkes. Zippo. Rien. Or topically, and perhaps a tad too cutely, NADA!
If we had first past the post The Greens would disappear overnight.
EC,
Wot, no odds on Nader?
He can run if wants to run. By George, it’s America. Seriously, if wants to run, he’s perfectly entitled, along with everyone else who runs.
OK, Andrew, 4U, but they’re as tight as a fishes. Ralph’s a hail stone’s chance in Hades. I wouldn’t have a zac on the bastard if he was a squillion to one.
President – WINNER
OBAMA, Barack 1.68
MCCAIN, John 2.90
CLINTON, Hillary 4.50
BLOOMBERG, Michael 41.00
HUCKABEE, Mike 126.00
NADER, Ralph 126.00
If the Democrats don’t want to lose elections due to the inequities of the first-past-the-post system, then instead of denigrating the people who are trying to change it, perhaps they could consider SUPPORTING THE FREAKING CHANGE. They call themselves the “Democratic Party”, for chrissakes!
Sorry, it really irritates me when Democrat supporters have a go at third parties for DARING to exist. What are they supposed to do? Accept the two parties’ self-satisfied declaration that only they have the right to run candidates? Go quietly off into the night? Oh, sorry kind sirs, sorry for intruding on the political system that belongs to you and only you forever more so help us Amen?
GET STUFFED. You don’t “own” liberals; and you only represent us to the extent that you’re slightly… slightly better than the Republicans. Is that “slightly better” good enough to never push for change, to just endure for eternity?
If I were an American liberal, my answer would be simple: NO.
Different voting system, but I reckon a few Greens would be pissed off if somebody told them not to run here because it might impact on the ALP’s chances.
Darlene @ 32….
Yes, the greens should not run in QLD elections because we have a de facto first past the post system. And I want to be there when they tell them.
So do I. Hopefully they use more colourful language than “go fuck yourselves”, but that’d be a good start.
Yes, Gore ran a shitty campaign. For sure, it shouldn’t have mattered that Nader bled off a few more Gore votes than Bush votes. But it did.
And I’m sorry, but eight years of George W. Bush should be ample evidence that for all the Democrats’ faults (and they have plenty as a party, and Clinton and Obama have plenty of faults as politicians) the idea that it’s OK to take the risk of handing an election to the Republicans just to make a point about electoral reform is just crazy.
And if we did have a first-past-the-post electoral system, I would be extremely pissed off if the Greens ran candidates in marginal Labor seats.
Again, Jeremy, you’re confusing the idea of progressives arguing that it’s a bad thing for other progressives to split the vote, and people actually trying to stop people splitting the vote.
No-one is suggesting that Nader/ Greens have no right to do it, but most would argue, as Amanda does: “Frankly, a few more wars, pro choice roll back, no health reform, continuing war on science, expanded Gitmo etc etc seems a high price to pay.” Surely that kind of payment is only worth it if you make some sort of difference. What exactly will Nader achieve, do you think, that is worth that price? What has he achieved the last two times?
What I, and many others, want is for some honesty that yes, this is the price we may pay, and here’s why we think it’s worth the risk. Go.
Jeremy, we get exactly the same comment from Labor when we are running Greens candidates in Melbourne. We’re apparently not supposed to try to unseat Bronwyn Pike or Lindsay Tanner because they’re in the Left faction (and, somehow, supposedly one of the ‘good guys’). Tanner had the gall to complain about our Melbourne campaign (which saw federal Melbourne join the state seat as a marginal Labor-Green seat); he said we were distracting the campaign to defeat Howard by running a candidate where our vote is the highest. I’m paraphrasing here, but that’s the effect of his complaint. It’s not one I have a great deal of sympathy for – progressive voters do not have ‘Property of the Australian Labor Party’ stamped on our foreheads. It’s not enough to win my vote by just not being John Howard, and I’m not alone in this.
I could be wrong, but I doubt Nader will go all the way to November. I think he just wants people to hear what he has to say (again).
It’s a message worth repeating over and over: the US model of Democracy is a transparent farce.
Perhaps Nader figures that after 8 years of the chimp, the USA might be in a mood to reconsider that message. He could be right – look at how Ron Paul is hanging in there!
The more the merrier, I say. Have at ‘em, Ralphie, (you sad old git).
I agree with Robert Merkel and Anna Winter. Nader does have a right to run. It doesn’t mean that it is in the best interests of progressives for him to do so. I can’t see how he can do much except bleed votes away from the Democrats. With all their faults, the Democrats are a heck of a lot better than the crazy Republicans.
I just don’t see what is wrong with being a pragmatic progressive.
I totally support Nader’s right to run, and in a sense I applaud his ideals.
It just seems that people like Nader, and Jeremy in his supporting arguments would rather spend their lives cutting off their nose to spite their face than get into power and start making the small steps which will make a difference. Seems to be all or nothing. Which so often means nothing.
I see two major battles in the USA today: one is Dems v. GOP, the other is within the Dem party, progressives v. elites.
Nader’s candidacy will probably harm the progressives if he does run right to November, which is a pity, but perhaps the message will bleed support to them in the longer term. Or perhaps, if the Dems lose big, the progressives might split to form a new party, embracing Naderites, Paulistas and maybe even Greens???
I find it hard to imagine a President McCain, just as I find it hard to imagine what happens if we don’t do what’s needed to stop global warming – the consequences just don’t bear too much thinking about!
If it DOES happen, the world will further realign against an increasingly isolated USA. We might be glad we have a Chinese-speaking PM in place…
Oh, and then comparison with the Greens here is totally spurious in a two-party preferred system.
Yeah yeah, nutcase Queensland (tautology?) optional preferential voting aside.
Jeremy, with our preferential voting system, a green vote CAN have a direct bearing on who’s elected, especially if the top two candidates are close as the tally progresses.
In first past the post contests like the US, a vote for a minor candidate with no hope is tantamount to electoral onanism.
C.O. defines realpolitik as, “politics based on realities and material needs, rather than on morals or ideals”. I feel your passion and wholeheartedly agree with most of Nader’s policies, but the way the system operates there, he is completely unelectable.
imo, for all their pissantry, puffed-uppedness and faults, Gore and/or Kerry would have been far better presidents than The Imbecile. Sure their system sucks, but that’s the way it is, comrade.
if the problem’s the system (and i’d say it is) then voting for nader even if – particularly even if – it costs the democrats an election, is the only way you’ll ever get them to change it. If they lose, then maybe they’ll finally agree to open up the system so it never happens again. Voting for them is just locking the present system in forever, with no hope of change, ever.
If they lose, how are they going to change the system, jeremy?
As I pointed out above, there is no national electoral system in the States. Every state has its own electoral law. For national elections, the rules are set at state level. Changing that is a huge enterprise.
Personally, I don’t think Nader will get anywhere near his 2000 total or make any difference to the outcome, but there’s still the chance that he might, and I thoroughly agree with Anna’s comments.
There really is no analogy with The Greens in Australia due to a very different political culture and electoral system, as already pointed out.
Meanwhile, do you reckon it’s the white, male holders-of-law-degrees who will pay the biggest price?
In first past the post contests like the US, a vote for a minor candidate with no hope is tantamount to electoral onanism.
If Nader can get say 10% or even 5%, that says something. That means something. If people want to use their vote to make that statement, that’s their right.
It’s probably a better way to vote “None of the above” than just not voting at all.
It might also be helpful for people to have a look at the debates on the American Left (and I mean the Left, not the liberal Democratic blogosphere) about Nader and his impact. ZNet is always a good place to start. You know how to use a search box!
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet
Gandhi, the point that some of us are trying to make is that voting for Nader, or not voting at all, puts at risk some of the most vulnerable and marginalised people in society, just so three percent of the population can make a symbolic gesture. No-one’s saying they have no right to do that.
A none of the above vote doesn’t give you no President, it makes it just that bit easier for the worst of the “evils” to win.
I think Barry Goldwater père should run again. So what if he’s dead. I bet he’s still tan, rested and ready though.
Given the track record of the current Oval One, I reckon the yanks would be better off scrutinising and deciding on the basis of the team behind the potential POTUS, rather than on his or her’s ability to be winsome yet inspirational in public. Never mind the quality, feel the width.
…which is one of the reasons why many of those involved in grassroots (not necessarily netroots, though the two needn’t be incompatible) activism by, with and for the disadvantaged see Nader as being fundamentally selfish. That’s why I suggested having a look at some of the debates, and making your own mind up – but based on that rather than misplaced Australian analogies which I suspect are dominating this discussion. There’s no such thing as being a “member” of the Democratic Party, for instance, in the same sense that one can be a member of The Greens or the ALP in Australia. There’s enormous fuckupedness in US politics, but there’s also significant scope for people to work within the Democrats’ creaky structures for change that has more meaning than Obama’s windbaggery.
The same tired argument against Nader is the same tired argument used by Republicans who thin Ross Perot “stole” votes from them… and it was as bogus then as it is now.
Republicans do not own their votes, and neither do Democrats. Nor do Libertarians, Greens, or any other third-party entity. They must be earned. To assume ownership of a vote – an intangible thing – is as dangerous an idea as assuming ownership of the voter. And we’re already considered to be property of the government.
Nader thinks there should be more than two people in presidential debates. He’s right. The debate commission sets the bar so high, it keeps out third-party infidels… and that is bad for America.
Have a government-approved day.
I really like that Mark managed to use the terms “fuckupedness” and “windbaggery” in the same sentence and I can still comprehend what he’s saying.
I’m with Mark and Anna. A presidential campaign is not a civics lesson, it’s about winning the keys to the Whitehouse. I don’t believe that it is remotely responsible to jump in this stage and say that you want to have a run.
If Nader wanted to debate issues he’s had 4 to 6 months to do so with a range of contenders on the right and the left but he’s chosen not to engage until now. It just so happens that now it is conveniently simple to set up straw positions of the other mainstream candidates.
“If they lose, how are they going to change the system, jeremy?”
Look at it this way. We all agree that the first-past-the-post system is undemocratic, by effectively limiting people’s choice to two parties, and only two parties. How’s it going to change? It’s only going to change if the people in power now see it as in their interests to change it. And how would that happen? If they started losing elections because of it.
We only got preferential voting because the Liberals started losing elections as a result of votes being lost to the then Country Party.
To suggest that the only way to get preferential voting is for the Democrats to be in government is asinine. They haven’t announced any intention of doing that even if they DO win government! And until they declare that they’re going to push for the change – which they can do from opposition – people demanding more of a choice than just Dems vs Repubs should feel free, and their consciences free, to vote for a third party. If the Dems are corruptly insisting on the present system, they’re not worthy of your vote. If they announce they’ll reform it, then third party voters should be happy to vote directly for them this time just so they can implement that change. But are they likely to do the right thing without having their nose repeatedly bloodied, even by losing elections? Sadly, no.
Mark and Anna – on your logic, when can an American EVER vote for a third party? Only when it’s not going to upset the applecart? How convenient for the powers-that-be!
Mark and Anna (and others),
I think you are failing to see things from Nader’s perspective (which is not necessarily the same as mine, but I respect it). A lot of well-intentioned people in US politics have simply given up on the Dems, sometimes after many long years of full-blooded support.
Consider the fact that John Kerry was a Skull-and-Bonesman, for example, and refused to even discuss it. Or look at how Obama built his early campaign on an appeal to the pro-Israel lobby. Or how Pelosi has failed to do much of anything about the Iraq War. Etc etc…
There’s enormous fuckupedness in US politics, but there’s also significant scope for people to work within the Democrats’ creaky structures for change that has more meaning than Obama’s windbaggery.
Like I said earlier, there’s a battle going on for the Dems’ soul, but at the moment the elites still hold the trump cards. If people want to pursue meaningful change through other avenues, we (who champion the rights of “the most vulnerable and marginalised people in society”) should not come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Again, Jeremy, you’re missing my point. My “logic” is no more than the simple fact that if we risk losing the election for one principle, we risk losing on a whole bunch of others. That is, that you’re supporting the kind of political compromise that you detest we Labor/ Democratic hacks for.
If you really think that having the war in Iraq continue for at least four more years, to name but one consequence, is a price worth paying to get preferential voting, then say so. But at the moment, we’re both supporting putting off one goal in order to gain another, but you keep trying to pretend that your side is somehow more ideologically pure.
So again I ask: will the price paid – should the Democrats lose because of Nader – be a) worth it, and b) paid by people like you?
Jeremy, this is foolish:
“It’s only going to change if the people in power now see it as in their interests to change it. And how would that happen? If they started losing elections because of it.”
The “people in power” are there because they won, and if a third party helped them get there, where does that leave your argument?
Here here Anna. Well said.
“Meanwhile, do you reckon it’s the white, male holders-of-law-degrees who will pay the biggest price?”
Sorry, but this is just a pathetic attempt to shut down debate. Anna, why don’t you tell us your skin colour, nationality, and profession, and then we’ll figure out whether to listen to you or not on this topic? Presumably the answers are ‘black’, ‘American’ and ‘janitor’ (or similar).
BBB
Sigh…!
Just to keep this whole argument in perspective: Nader won something like 2.6 % of the vote in 2000, and 0.4 % in 2004.
IF the Dems lose the coming election – and I don’t think they can – it wont be because of Nader. It will be because they haven’t learned the lesson that Nader (and Jeremy) is making.
Whatever the pros and cons of Greens standing against ALP Left members in Australian Federal, State and local elections, in one fundamental respect it is not valid to compare this to the issue of Nader running in the US Presidential election. If the Greens succeed in the Australian context, we replace one progressive MP or Councillor with another; we don’t run the risk of letting through a right-wing opponent. It is this risk which Greens and other progressive third parties have to grapple with in the US context.
I think the general aim of trying to open up the US party system to a wider range of participants than the elephant and the donkey is a worthy one, but it has to be weighed strategically against other potential gains and losses from running a serious third party candidacy in the specific circumstances of a particular election.
A possible alternative strategy for the US Greens could be the inverse of what Sam Clifford suggested at #2, i.e. getting out the Green vote in November by running in as many Congressional Districts as possible, recommending that Green voters vote Democrat for President, and thus trying to be in a position where the Democrat Presidential candidate, if they win by a narrow margin, owes a debt to the Greens for the possibly decisive 1 or 2 per cent of the vote, with part of the quid pro quo being alook at electoral reform.
“If you really think that having the war in Iraq continue for at least four more years, to name but one consequence, is a price worth paying to get preferential voting, then say so.
Probably not the best example to use in support of your case, Anna, as Obama said he would take the troops out of Iraq in two years but only if Al-Qaeda is not establishing a base there. A pretty slippery position that highlights the convergence on most issues of the Dems and Republicans. Just saying and hoping, anyway, that he gets up.
Hopefully Nader makes his points about about a pretty stuffed up system and pulls out before election day. Things need to be said and exposed and you can’t fault him for that.
How is it an attempt to shut down debate, BBB? Because it’s an unpleasant question?
Jeremy is free to answer it, or not, and continue to debate, or not. All I’m asking for is a bit of honesty about exactly who would suffer were the Republicans win again.
I agree.
An interesting strategy, Paul, but I’m not sure how effective it will be. Having the Greens endorse another party’s Presidential candidate probably won’t make Greens voters feel too good about getting out to the polls if their vote is only going to contribute to local races. We all want to feel as if our vote makes a difference, which is why turnout in the Brisbane Central by-election last year wasn’t all that high. The Libs stayed at home and it was assumed to be a shoe-in for the ALP.
It’s probably more practical for Greens and Democrats to join together to campaign for IRV-STV at the local and state government level across the nation. As more and more jurisdictions hold their elections with a preferential system, there’ll be less opposition to the idea of holding the Presidential election with a preferential system. Of course, the problem is that elections are run by states and each state can, constitutionally, determine how it allocates Electoral College votes.
“All I’m asking for is a bit of honesty about exactly who would suffer were the Republicans win again.”
Yes, I see now that it was very important, in the context of this discussion, to point out that Jeremy is a white lawyer. Very important. Knowing these important facts will allow us to better reflect on ‘What Happens When Republicans Win’, and was clearly not intended, in any way, to affect others’ views about Jeremy or the arguments that he has presented here.
Please.
Anyway, to be honest I agree with your viewpoint. The issue is not really who has the ‘right’ to run, but what the likely consequences of running actually are.
BBB
I assumed everyone arguing here already knew who Jeremy was, so my intention was not to affect others’ view about him.
In other US-related news, the US Department of Defense has just announced the resignation of William J. Haynes, the General Counsel who ignored whatever farcical laws existed to implement Cheney’s order and get David Hicks out of Gitmo as a political favour to John Howard.
More at TPM.
Jeremy: if the problem’s the system (and i’d say it is) then voting for nader even if – particularly even if – it costs the democrats an election, is the only way you’ll ever get them to change it. If they lose, then maybe they’ll finally agree to open up the system so it never happens again.
This happened already Jeremy. Gore lost to Bush and we had eight years of Bush/Cheney. The first past the post system ‘cost the democrats an election’ and eight years later nothing has changed.
So should we take another eight years of GOP dominated politics in the hope that the desired electoral reforms will take place? Seems like a mighty big price to pay.
Joshua Holland tears down the myth about Nader being responsible for Gore’s 2000 loss:
Holland’s conclusion nicely sums up the opposing views expressed on this thread:
Interesting but not really applicable in the realpolitik world. Nader won’t get elected. I doubt very much that he’ll have any impact at all. He’s not endorsed as far as I’m aware by the Green party or anyone else. He’s got a little under 9 months to compete against candidates who are already well-known. This election, unlike 2000, will feature a very enthusastic push from the mainstream ‘left’ of the American polity to oust the Republicans. So the fuss is over nothing.
>
And whoever gets electedm whatever they’re saying now, are going to find Iraq a lot harder done than talked about.
>
He’s got a perfect right to run however and the 2000 election result really should’ve had the Democrats searching their own souls instead of hurling abuse Nader’s way. One thing that’s clear to Australians anyway is that the US electoral system sucks. But I have my doubts that it, or any other entrenched part of this rusty dinosaur, can be meaningfully reformed.
>
As for the Greens versus the ALP. I’m afraid I find it rich when the ALP whinges about left-wing traitors. In my view ecological policy has nothing to do with the traditional left-right spectrum. The Greens unfortunately, on the whole, don’t see it that way. I’d specualate that this is possibly as a result of a lot of people from the traditional Left, disillusioned with the ALP, and in the post-Comm Party, post-Marxist world having nowhere else to go. Additionally I’d specualate that the Greens have a base that will ensure them a certain slice of representation but will not allow them to make the compromises in policy or inter-party dealing that are necessary for them to gain a larger share of the electorate. Andrew Reynolds has made this argument very well.
>
Personally I’d just prefer it if they spent more time developing practical policies that may accomplish sustainability instead of being the ALP’s Jiminy Cricket. I don’t believe the mainstream parties really understand the gravity of the issues – not just AGW but potentially far more serious: toxicity. I don’t think most Greens do either.
>
Whatever. I just have to say again whenever the ALP demands loyalty or talks about morals and ethics I almost choke with laughter.
Nader, running for president? Obama forbid!
But I wouldn’t worry. Surely this time around, the tinfoil-and-patchouli crowd have somebody else’s hymn-book to sing from. Nader will take away few if any votes, and afterwards he’ll just skulk off into some dark, Obama-forsaken corner, never to be heard from again.
gandhi: “Like I said earlier, there’s a battle going on for the Dems’ soul…”
Silly goose. Democrats don’t have souls.
“The “people in powerâ€? are there because they won, and if a third party helped them get there, where does that leave your argument?”
and
“This happened already Jeremy. Gore lost to Bush and we had eight years of Bush/Cheney. The first past the post system ‘cost the democrats an election’ and eight years later nothing has changed.
So should we take another eight years of GOP dominated politics in the hope that the desired electoral reforms will take place? Seems like a mighty big price to pay.”
It’s very simple: the Democrats can announce that, as a result of the clear undemocratic nature of the present system, in which people’s votes are “wasted” and in which only two major parties can effectively run, if they win they will open an electoral reform process to assess the alternatives available to making their system more democratic. Then third party voters would feel that they could vote for the Democrats without it simply being an endorsement of the present system.
(They call themselves “Democrats” and are running on a ticket of “change”, after all.)
Until they do that, all your “but it’ll help the Republicans” arguments completely miss the point: the undemocratic SYSTEM is what’ll help the Republicans, not the existence of third parties, and apparently the only way to get the major parties to support change is to apply pressure by voting for someone else. Until they get the freaking message.
Mondo – if the Dems lose because of voters preferring Nader, it’ll be their own damn fault for not demanding electoral reform after the 2000 fiasco.
the only way to get the major parties to support change is to apply pressure by voting for someone else. Until they get the freaking message.
I wonder if the invasion of Iran will be an acceptable price for further reform pressure? I doubt the Iranians would think so.
I think Anna makes a good point above Jeremy – if your argument is that “Republican government is an acceptable price to pay in order to highlight the need for electoral reform” then why not just come right out and say it? But in doing so you might want to turn your attention to who will be paying that ‘acceptable’ price – because it damn sure isn’t going to be you or me.
Nader’s a white male middle class lawyer too.
Just sayin…
By the way, Jeremy, yeah, I do argue that this time, it really is important for US supporters of Nader to hold their nose and vote for Clinton or Obama. There’s the post-Kyoto treaty to negotiate. While McCain is one of the better Republicans on this issue, Clinton or Obama should be able to do a much better deal.
And unless we get a serious deal, we’re all screwed – and that’s not an exaggeration.
But in 2012 there’ll be another reason why “this time” we can’t afford to take the risk, and again in 2016, and again in 2020… essentially, if we buy that now, nothing will ever change.
Your approach involves choosing slightly less short term pain now but guaranteeing us much more pain in the longer-term.
I’m going to pick up on the point about the false comparisons with Australian politics. In a real sense, there is no “Democratic Party” policy. The party convention might put forward a platform, but the Presidential candidate is free to run on whatever he/she likes, and most Congressional and Senatorial candidates do that as a matter of course. Factions in the Congress are somewhat more formalised than they used to be, but there’s just no sense in which you can say anything like “the Democratic Party promises…” as you can with “The ALP will in government…”. It’s a vastly different political system.
And, as Mark pointed out, any change to electoral law is a state by state affair.
Jeremy’s point lacks any appreciation of the realities.
And it’s all very nice for “progressive” middle class types to argue a process case. Fuck the minimum wage workers, the illegal immigrants, and the people being slaughtered in Iraq and held in Guantanamo while we wait for “reform”?
Charming, Kim.
I’m suggesting that the cause of “the minimum wage workers, the illegal immigrants, and the people being slaughtered in Iraq and held in Guantanamo” would be vastly better in the medium and long-term if voters were not prevented from voting for anyone but the two major US parties. And that the only way to achieve this is to highlight to the two major parties that they will miss out on victories if the system doesn’t change.
That’s how conservative country voters pushed the Australian conservatives into giving us preferential voting, such that those conservative country voters now have a real voice in parliament. If US progressives want a voice, they have to fight for it. And giving in to the Democrats’ blackmail is not how to do that.
Yes, they can all wait for the medium to long term can’t they, Jeremy, while important questions of electoral reform are prioritised?
A lot of that fight takes place within the Democratic ranks. And outside. But having easier ballot access wouldn’t get Nader within cooey of a decent vote. He’s not that good a candidate for progressives, anyway. And if you think that anyone could break into the system without some real change to the corporate financing of running, you’re kidding yourself.
And you still haven’t addressed any of the practicalities about how this change could be brought about.
That’s true. But sometimes the reasons are good, sometimes they’re bad. And in any event it doesn’t matter Nader will not reform the system by which US citizens elect their president. He couldn’t do it even if he did run for president. If he’s serious about reforming the system he has to start campaign to do this within the states. What he’s doing instead is wasting his time and other people’s money.
>
And as Kim said the parties in America don’t have binding policy platforms like they do here. This is a very important distinction. In America people lie to you as individuals, in Australia it’s a collective effort.
The classic crazy ersatz Leninism of Robert, Mark, Kim, Anna and etc now stands fully exposed for all to see. We are such clever experts doncha see.
This is why we get the John Flipper Kerry’s and the Kevin fucking Rudds.
They won’t stand for any real libertarian/democratic socialist change just like any classic bourgeois Marxist/Fabian authoritarian socialshit.
As I said before. Lamer. Leftist. Losers. Terminal losers in the case of Hillbilly
Kudo’s to Jeremy, ‘Ghandi’ and the non-racist Libertarians. Piss on the Fabians.
So long as we genuine progressives put up with all this processed bullshit – so long we shall have the US fucking senate there and the fucking Governor-generalate here.
But that is the best us peasants can ever hope for!…fuck that bullshit!
Run Ralph RUN!
Go GREENS GO!
Die scum DIE!
I’ve kept my crazy ersatz Leninism in my pants thus far Monsieur le Rodent PhD, and I would thank you to leave me out of your revolutionary ravings.
Also, bear in mind that as such they have little to contribute to a realpolitik discussion. Or is the no such thing in your no doubt delicious but barely readable book?
Jeremy (and others who are aruging along the same lines as him) has not yet answered the following important question:
What effects will it have to the people of USA if the Republicans win the election instead of the Democrats?
I’d agree, except that I’d go one better for the minor parties (Greens, Libertarians, etc…) – don’t just campaign for reform, run to win at city/county/state level. There are quite a few reps already there, and that’s good, but they should really aim for running the joint(s). There are two advantages – they have a better chance of getting preferential voting[*] if they have the levers of power, and they raise their profile with the voters.
And taking over a state isn’t always that onerous. There are quite a few states that are pretty small – smaller than Brisbane in population.
Except for what Jeremy and only a couple of others have said, this is mostly pretty grim reading.
That Nader is spoiling the Democrat vote? What a load of complacent crap. Two party hegemony has to be stopped, and it aint just about the electoral system. And who says compulsory voting is desirable? Or even democratic? Especially with two, not very different sets of political elites to choose from. How many non citizens, felons, and black people would be eligible for that?
If only to show up the absurd pageantry that is the US presidential election, I’d vote Nader.
Nation editor Katherine Vanden Heuvel’s open letter to Nader:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=289938
What’s bugging me about this whole Nader Presidential run is the arrogance of his views. Nader and his supporters are convinced that his issues must be aired regardless of the consequences of this action.
The Obama, Clinton and McCain campaigns have been gone through the process of working out which issues people care about and are in the process of a large national conversation about these issues should be approached. Millions of Americans have been actively involved in this process by campaigning and voting.
If Nader is so damned serious about the “progressive” issues he purports to support then why hasn’t he jumped in before now. What’s more, why doesn’t he run for Congress instead of the Presidency?
Would it have been fair enough for Ralph to run in 1992, or was that election also “too important”?
Mick, so market research to find out what people want is a more noble platform basis than having principles?
Pandering to populism is much easier than outlining an original platform. Nader’s been walking the walk for fifty years now and has set up numerous public interest groups and NGOs and has lobbied hard for changes which benefit people as consumers and citizens.
Albeit one of Arabic ancestry on his dad’s side. Just sayin’…
This is pretty funny: what’s Nader thinking?
@Ronald Raygun #90 – Market research is anything but noble, but at least an approach based on what people want, or perceive they want, has more to do with democracy than politicians telling the public what they should want. At the very least the public tend to appreciate the former option more often than the later.
I think that Nader has done a huge body of admirable work but his dealings involving Presidential campaigns since ‘96 come across as being extremely arrogant. He comes across as unwilling to accept the notion that action on the issues that he discusses requires a mandate. That won’t happen with 1% of the Presidential vote.
Which is what happens in US States where “Electoral Fusion” is still permitted. The Working Families Party in NY, for instance, endorses Democratic (and sometimes Republican) candidates on the ballot, so in 2006 Eliot Spitzer was on both the Democratic and WF ballots.
Fusion was very effective for left-wing parties back in the day, which led to the major parties outlawing it in most states, and locked in the two party system.
Late to the party, but as a card-carrying member of the Australian Greens, with a partner who is a card carrying member of the US Greens, I humbly submit our mutual position, which is Nader is an arrogant idiot, and his decision to run this time will damage progressive politics in the USA, not help it.
I don’t believe Nader cost Gore the 2000 election, so let’s get that out of the way. He did fail to show perspective in understanding that Bush, as was amply clear by 2004, represents an all-new nadir of appalling government with globally catastrophic impacts that needed to be stopped. Hence I have had zero regard for him since his decision to run in 04. It was telling that the US Greens did not endorse him.
Like Paul Norton and others, I believe from talking with many Green and ‘very’ left Americans that the way for the Greens and other minor parties to challenge and hopefully eventually reform the USA’s profoundly undemocratic election system is from the grass roots up. Build a constituency and a viable, credible alternative at the local council /regional politics and eventually congressional district level. Trying to start from top down is a proven formula for failure and further antagonises Democrats who are otherwise sympathetic to the need for electoral reform.
What is most egregious about Nader’s run this time is that he’s competing against Obama. Not only are Obama’s policies considerably more progressive than McCain’s, or for that matter Kerry’s, his campaign is winning precisely because it is a grass-roots approach , rather than a traditional style political run based entirely on elite money and endorsements. Providentially there is a good post on this at DailyKos which can be found right here
Obama’s is a genuinely grass roots campaign, US style, and will almost certainly change the style and substance of US politics if he succeeds in winning the Presidency.
If Nader helps foil a win by Obama, he will also be foiling the adoption of such grass-roots campaigning techniques which represent a real break from old-style US politics, and have the potential to lay the foundation for geniune democratic reform in the long term in the USA – and yet it’s the latter that Nader claims to be all about.
My partner only now votes for Greens in local contests or where the Democratic candidate is as egregiously offensive as the Rethug. She’ll almost certainly be voting for Obama in November, assuming he gets the nomination.
Here’s hoping Nader disappears this time fast. There’s far too much globally riding on this.
Exactly!
Sorry, my link at #92 doesn’t work. Try this:
http://www.236.com/news/2008/02/25/thought_process_flowchart_ralp_1_4699.php
What myriad said.
He was everything I’ve wanted to say in this thread except, like, what he said was actually coherent, thought through, and had shiny words like “constituency”. Oh, ‘cept I’m not a Green and the DailyKos mostly makes me want to cry…
People should get over US election 2000. Nader just exercised his right to run for President. Nobody has to like it.
What happened in Florida was the election was rigged. For that matter, what happened in Ohio in 2004 was that the election was rigged.
It’s no good saying that if it wasn’t for Nader, then it wouldn’t have been an issue because it was so close…rigging an election is a serious crime (running for President by contrast is a right given to every US citizen aged 35 or more) , and the perps should have been tossed into the hoosegow and the voting system overhauled.
Another thing. People insulting Nader should get their heads, or at least their ethics, read. Can anyone even guess how many lives his advocacy has saved over the last 40 years?
Nader’s right. If Obama can’t win by a landslide this time around it’s time the Democrats picked up their teddy bears and went home.
At the risk of repeating things said dozens of times, nobody’s saying he doesn’t have the right to run, JJ. But, as myriad so eloquently put it, he’s not helping those causes he professes to support, and he runs the (slight, but real) risk of doing a lot of damage.
As while Obama should have won by a landslide, let’s look at history. The American electorate were dumb enough to re-elect Bush in 2004. Assuming they’ll get it right in 2008 is a risky bet.
Yes. In 1972 they even re-elected Tricky Dicky in a landslide. This was most dispiriting for a precocious 13 year old who had learned about US politics from reading MAD magazine.
DailyKos mostly makes me want to cry..
slightly OT, but as I’m a long time member of Kos (one of the first thousand signees!), I can say that the quality of discourse always goes to hell in a handbasket through the primaries, and over the last few years has declined in many ways overall as well. There are still excellent posters there, but if you just dip in to the site in its current state, it’s tear-worthy material
At the risk of repeating things said dozens of times, …
Over 100 posts in this thread, and over 10,000 words! Could it be that the ideas expressed on one side are just too subtle for the other to comprehend?
Ps – I’m a she
Don’t think the libertarians and the democratic socialists have the same changes in mind. Do you know this or are you co-opting the word libertraian?
>
First they lost the monopoly on ‘liberal’ now they’re losing libertarian. It’s not fair. (Leaving room for snarky comment re competition and monopolies).
Alaister –
Um… war? 100 years of…Monthly death toll? Etcetera
#85 – Spot on. Nader’d do better to run against the crusty old congress and the Fycus plants.
He’s never run before I think you mean Kerry. Kerry was useless.
Considering the opinion polls I’ll take that bet.
“Alaister -
What effects will it have to the people of USA if the Republicans win the election instead of the Democrats?
Um… war? 100 years of…Monthly death toll? Etcetera”
That was a pretty lame effort to answer that question. I think advocates for Nader running for president should be able to carefully consider that pertinent question.
Yes, I meant Kerry.
Lame effort? Nonsense.
>
At the minute I see contenders for president: McCain, Clinton and Obama. The first two amomgst these supported the invasion of war. McCain the Republican continues to do so and believes it worth fighting for a hundred years if necessary.
>
Now first I’ll take him at his word. Second I’ll round down the $323 Billion figure calculated two years ago to an even $300 bill. I’ll throw into the mix the number 3971 which is the latest figure for US deaths in the war.
>
Then let’s multiply that by Senator McCain’s century and the bill is:
>
$7 500 000 000 000.00 + 99 275 lives.
>
So what’s the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans again. Maybe none. If Obama and Clinton were lying thru their teeth I wouldn’t be at all surprised. It’s their job after all. Obama seems to’ve been oppossed to this madness for the long haul. And he had the courage to make that stand even when it was highly unpopular.
Maybe, a bit of Mr Fish, for a laff on the subject, both ways.
http://laweekly.blogs.com/fish/2008/02/auto-electorial.html#comments
LOL
Adrien,
so you’re suggesting that there may be a huge difference between Obama and McCain (with which I agree). Obama is already a significantly better choice than McCain based on just one area, albeit an important one.
Obama would be overwhelmingly better than John McCain for many other reasons. He’d be substantially better than McCain in many other areas including climate change, health and socially liberal values.
Seeing as though Nader has no chance of election and, if he runs, is likely to bleed votes from Obama (assuming he’s nominated), I believe he would better serve the American people in ways other than running for President.